Partly allowed

Smt Channajamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Mar 2023WP/2011/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the non-action on a complaint regarding illegal construction and road encroachment. The High Court directed authorities to consider the grievance within 8 weeks and restrained the alleged violator from further construction pending enquiry, while also directing an IT system for tracking complaints.

What did the court decide?

Respondents to consider complaint within 8 weeks; Respondent No. 4 restrained from further construction pending order; Commissioner BBMP and Secretary to implement IT system for tracking complaints.

Smt Channajamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 2011 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.2011 OF 2023 (LB-BMP)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT CHANNAJAMMA W/O LATE S RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶8

SRI SOMASHEKAR R S/O LATE S RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO.101, MYSURU ROAD PANTHARAPALYA BENGALURU 560039

¶9

…PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI. SOMASHEKHARAIAH R P.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU 560001 REP BY ITS SECRETARY

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE BENGALURU 560002

¶15

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE CHANDRA LAYOUT DIVISION BENGALURU 560040

¶16

¶17

WP No. 2011 of 2023

¶18

SMT GAYATHRI C W/O LATE VIJAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.9, PANTHARAPALYA MYSURU ROAD NEAR B M VALLEY SCHOOL NAYANDAHALLI BENGALURU 560039

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. H.V. MANJUNATH.,ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3 SMT. A.R. SHARDAMBA, AGA FOR R1)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 TO CONSIDER THE COMPLAINT/REPRESENTATION DATED 22/12/2022 UNDER ANNEXURE-G TO PREVENT ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION PUTTING UP BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 WHO IS CONSTRUCTING THE BUILDING WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY SANCTION PLAN, AND WITHOUT LEAVING ANY SET BACK AND ALSO ENCROACHING UPON THE PUBLIC ROAD, FORTHWITH AND ETC.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP , THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶25

a. Issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 and 3 to consider the complaint/representation dated 22/12/2022 under Annexure-G to prevent illegal construction putting up by the Respondent No.4 who is constructing the building without there being any sanction plan, and without leaving any set back and also encroaching upon the public road, forthwith.

¶26

¶27

WP No. 2011 of 2023

¶28

b. Issue direction to the respondent No.2 to take immediate steps to keep the respondent No.3 under suspension and to hold department enquiry, for not immediately acting upon the complaint/representation submitted by the petitioner dated 22/12/2022 (Annexure-G), as per the directions issued by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.29449/2016 under AnnexureH

¶29

c. Issue such other order direction as may be deemed fit pass grant in the circumstances of the case.

¶30

The grievance of the petitioner is that complaint and/orrepresentation dated 22.12.222 submitted by the petitioner at Annexure-G has not been considered by respondents No.2 and 3.

¶31

Sri.K.B.MoneshKumar, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 submits that necessary action would be taken on the said

¶32

representationgiven a period of 8 weeks after taking into consideration respective documents of the petitioner and respondent No.4. His submission is placed on record.

¶33

There are several matters coming before this Court as regards no action being taken by the respondent

¶34

¶35

WP No. 2011 of 2023

¶36

as regards complaints submitted more particularly as regards violation of building plans, encroachment of government land, foot path, road etc. In this particular case the issue is as regards illegal construction put up without a sanction of plan.

¶37

There appears to be no particular system which is in place with the respondents as regards the receipt of and processing of any complaint or representation received by the respondents.

¶38

It is therefore, required that a proper system be establish in this regard. The Commissioner, BBMP alongwith the Secretary, e-Governance are directed to bring in to effect a IT/Electronic System which should capture date on which the complaint/representation as received, nature of complaint, action by each of the officers relating of the said complaint and time taken thereto, the order passed on the complaint/representation including the time taken from the date of complaint to the date of

¶39

¶40

WP No. 2011 of 2023

¶41

the order. Apart from the above data points, if any other data points are required to be captured in the system the same could also be captured and then web hosted on the concerned website or on a website to be created for this purpose.

¶42

Hence, I pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

i. The Writ Petition is partly allowed/disposed.

¶45

ii. Respondents are directed to consider the complaint/representation dated 22.12.2022 at Annexure-G submitted by the petitioner within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶46

iii. In the meanwhile, respondent No.4 is restrained from putting up any construction until an order is passed on the representation of the petitioner by respondents No.2 and 3.

¶47

¶48

WP No. 2011 of 2023

¶49

iv. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

¶50

v. Though above petition is disposed, re-list on 13.4.2023 for reporting compliance with the above directions.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

PRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 76

Smt Channajamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Channajamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Kannappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Shivanand Vs State of Karnataka

N S L Sugars (Tungabhadra)Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Dr. Ravindra. R. Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri Shankar v Hegde Vs Secretary

Sri Shashidhar S Joshi Vs Secretary